3. Analysing child and youth outcomes in Ireland from a comparative perspective

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of selected child and youth well-being outcomes in Ireland. It analyses child socioeconomic outcomes, how these affect children’s access to key service areas, and the effects of children’s socio-economic disadvantages on developmental outcomes. This chapter also explores the outcomes for young people in Ireland, examining socio-economic and public governance factors. Through a comparative lens with OECD countries, it identifies areas of strength and areas needing improvement, providing insights into Ireland’s standing in international comparison.

Child well-being outcomes

Introduction

Over the past decade, Ireland has undertaken a comprehensive review of its approach to tackling child poverty and childhood disadvantage, with a renewed focus on significantly reducing poverty levels in line with a pledge articulated in the European Commission 2020 Strategy (Byrne, 2020[1]). In essence, Ireland’s approach to child poverty and tackling childhood disadvantage encompasses a combination of income supports and child-related services and assistance (GoI, 2020[2]). Further, in 2023, following the statement by the Taoiseach to “making Ireland the best country in Europe to be a child”, Ireland created a Child Poverty and Well-being Programme Office in the Department of the Taoiseach to focus on six areas of early action and to bring together policies and services to make an impact on children living in poverty (Department of the Taoiseach, 2023[3]).

Ireland has been making ongoing efforts to improve children’s outcomes by enhancing access to key services. For instance, in 2019, the National Childcare Scheme was introduced with the purpose of significantly reducing the cost of Early Childhood Care and Education (ECEC) and school age childcare for families and extending state-subsidised childcare provision. However, achieving universal access to general practitioner care for children has been slower, while the country has entered a serious housing crisis caused by a lack of supply of houses to buy or rent, high constructions costs and low supply of social housing (DHLGH, 2021[4]), which has led to the highest number of homeless families on record in Ireland.

Ireland has also been reorienting service provision for children and families to prevention and early intervention and towards progressive universalism, providing services to all children and families yet at the same time ensuring tailored and targeted support to those most in need (Kennedy, 2019[5]). This entails providing children and families with a richer set of services. Ireland launched First 5 in 2018, a ten-year cross-government strategy for babies, young children, and their families, which is focused on making sure all children have positive early experiences and get life off to a good start. First 5 shares common features with the First 1000 Day approach in several OECD countries to structuring family policy (Riding et al., 2021[6]). First 5 recognises the early years as a distinct and critical time in child development and aims to give parents and children access to a broader range of supports to promote healthy development.

Ireland established Tusla, the Child and Family Agency in 2014 to deliver child protection and family support services, removing these portfolios from the country’s health service, the HSE, and to deliver responsibilities previously performed by the National Educational Welfare Board and the Family Support Agency. Tusla has been engaged through its Prevention, Partnership and Family Support (PPFS) pillar in reorientating service provision towards prevention and early intervention. This reorientation has led to the introduction of new tools and structures to work with families with lower support needs or where children are at lower risk of harm (i.e., Meitheal and Child and Family Support Networks) and area-based prevention and early intervention initiatives for children and families living in areas of high deprivation where outcomes for children and young people are significantly lower (i.e., Area Based Childhood Programme) (DCECIY, 2022[7]). An 2022 spending review of Tusla-funded community and voluntary sector family support services, which are commissioned under the PPFS pillar, indicated that family support services may be becoming more expensive on a per-child basis because of a rise in case complexities while the demand for family support services is likely to increase in the near term because of the rise in the numbers seeking international protection and the arrival of Ukrainian temporary protection applicants (DCECIY, 2022[7]). Tusla’s child protection services continue to be hindered by ongoing issues with recruitment and retention of social workers (Clarke and Mahon, 2020[8]; Smith, 2022[9]). In addition to this, Tusla developed a Child Protection and Welfare Strategy 2017-22 to set out a strategic vision to improve child protection and welfare services in Ireland through six strategic objectives: establishing a national approach to practices, developing clear responsive pathways, fostering a learning environment for staff, growing proactive relationships with partners in the child protection space, empowering staff and leaders to make risk-sensible decisions, and establishing well defined and measurable outcomes (Tusla, 2017[10]). For more, see Chapters 4 and 8.

Ireland has developed a national model of parenting support services which the DCEDIY is tasked to oversee. Developing a national model of parenting support services is a key action under Ireland’s main policy frameworks for children i.e. First Five and Young Ireland. The new national model seeks to address the ad-hoc development of parenting support services in Ireland and the complex and fragmented delivery structure (including state, voluntary/community, and for-profits services). The institutionalisation of parenting supports is in line with the approach of other EU member states (Daly, 2022[11]).

Another significant policy development is the adoption at the European level of the Child Guarantee to prevent and combat social exclusion by guaranteeing the access of children in-need to a set of key services. Ireland is required to earmark 5% of its total ESF+ allocation to combat child poverty (Kennedy, 2022[12]). Ireland’s National Action Plan to implement the Child Guarantee outlines the targeted categories of children in need (to include those children living in or at risk of poverty, children in jobless households, children living in households with substance misuse, mental illness, assessed with a housing need, using emergency accommodation, with disabilities, with mental health issues, membership of the Traveller community, with a migrant background), as well as the intended measures, many of which are already in process. One new action is the development of local Child Poverty Action Plans on a pilot basis.

Partly as a result of the initiatives and plans, the amount of public spending on children has increased significantly over the past decade, reinforcing a trend that had already begun in the mid-2000s. The available comparative data do not include all the spending involved in these plans. However, available data on social spending on families and child education indicate that, since 2011, spending per child in the Irish population has increased by 12% on average, with the increase being highest for pre-school children (+33%) (Table 3.1). Public spending on childcare for children under 6 has particularly increased since 2011 (+47%); however, the level of spending per child in 2019 (USD 22,000) remains below the OECD average (USD 30,800). Expenditure on cash transfers has also risen sharply, covering children of all ages but again especially for children below school age. It is noticeable, however, that income support benefiting older children in Ireland is higher than the OECD average. Spending on education per school-age child has also increased, by an average of 10% since 2011.

Table 3.1. Ireland is increasingly investing in children
OECD average public spending on family benefits and education (primary and secondary) by age, per child USD PPP amounts
		2005	2011	2013	2019	OECD 2019
Cash	age 0-5	14 752	18 945	29 871	26 008	28 330
	age 6-11	13 143	15 632	20 977	23 013	14 398
	age 12-17	12 787	15 614	20 937	23 024	13 776
Childcare¹	age 0-5	8 268	14 086	15 332	21 887	30 798
In-kind	age 0-5	2 515	4 844	3 280	1 212	3 679
	age 6-11	2 515	4 844	3 280	1 212	3 713
	age 12-17	2 515	4 844	3 290	1 167	3 789
Education	age 0-5	8 050	11 655	10 948	10 693	1 157
	age 6-11	34 367	51 373	49 165	52 800	55 672
	age 12-17	47 650	73 259	67 761	67 377	65 145
Total	age 0-5	33 584	49 531	59 431	59 801	63 964
	age 6-11	50 024	71 849	73 422	77 491	78 101
	age 12-17	62 952	93 718	91 988	91 568	82 932
Notes: Public spending on children by age group and by type of spending is calculated using data on public spending on education, social expenditure, benefit rules and enrolment rates. The three age groups covered are: early childhood (ages 0-5 years), middle childhood (ages 6-11 years) and late childhood (ages 12-17 years). The types of public spending are cash benefits and tax breaks towards families, childcare, other benefits in kind for families, and education (primary and secondary). Childcare services are geared towards pre-school children, but a small fraction of older children may access them.
Source: OECD Family Database, PF1.6 Public spending by age of children.

Childhood poverty and material deprivation

This section provides an outline of child socio-economic disadvantage in Ireland from a comparative perspective. It covers indicators for child income poverty, financial strain, and child-specific material deprivation. It demonstrates that, although significant progress has been made to tackle poverty, a sizeable minority of children do not have access to basic material goods and resources, despite comparatively high levels of financial support to families.

Child poverty has fallen but short of meeting national poverty targets

Ireland has achieved great progress in reducing child poverty but has fallen short of meeting its 2014 national poverty target to reduce the number of children living in consistent poverty by at least two-thirds on 2011 levels of 107 000, or 70,000 by 2020.1 In 2011, 9.3% of children lived in consistent poverty falling to 5.2% in 2021 or 42 000 fewer children. However, the rate of consistent poverty among children rose again in 2022 to 7.5% or 89 000 children in absolute terms (CSO, 2023[13]). Children under the age of 18 thus make up more than a third of the total population living in poverty. Moving forward, Ireland requires a more active approach to child poverty reduction than previously considered, capturing the different policy levers that can improve the lives of children living in poverty.

Part of Ireland’s progress in child poverty reduction can be credited to the country’s progressive tax-benefit system. Ireland is very effective at reducing child poverty through cash supports, especially compared to other OECD countries with similarly high pre-tax and transfer child poverty rates. After tax and transfers, Ireland reduces its child poverty rate by almost four, from one of the highest in the OECD to below the OECD average (Figure 3.1).Other countries with high pre-tax and transfer child poverty rates, for example, France and the United Kingdom, are not as effective at reducing child poverty through tax and transfers. Ireland reduces its child poverty rates from 30% to 8%, while France only reduces its child poverty rate from 27.5% to 11.7% and the United Kingdom from 30.2% to 11.9%.

Figure 3.1. After tax and transfers, Ireland’s child poverty rate falls from among the highest to the lowest in the OECD

Despite year-on-year improvements in the financial situation of households with children since 2014, many continue to find themselves under financial pressure. In 2020, almost 58% of all households with children reported at least some difficulty in making ends meet, higher than the European OECD average of 47%. Almost 53% of working households with children reported financial strain, which is slightly lower than the rate in Portugal (55%), but well above France (43%) and the Netherlands (18%). Difficulties in making ends meet is an even bigger issue for households headed by a lone parent or by a parent with a low level of education, at 63% and 94% respectively (OECD, 2024[14]). The rate of income poverty of lone parent households and jobless households with children remains substantially higher. In 2018, 27.5% of lone parent households with at least one child lived in poverty, compared to only 4.5% of two-parent households, while around 45% of jobless households with at least one child live in poverty (OECD, 2024[14]). Moreover, three quarters of all one-parent households reported some level of difficulty making ends meet, of which almost 16% had great difficulty (CSO, 2022[15]).

Child specific material deprivation has halved yet remains above the European OECD average

Ireland has had one of the largest declines in child specific material deprivation in European OECD countries, halving the share of children experiencing child specific material deprivation from 30% in 2014 to 13% in 2021. Latvia is the only other European OECD country where rates of child specific deprivation were higher than Ireland yet has managed to reduce the share of materially deprived children even further, from 38% in 2014 to 10% in 2021. Despite this large reduction, in absolute and relative terms, Ireland’s share of materially deprived children remains slightly above the European OECD average of just under 12% (Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2. Ireland has halved the share of materially deprived children but still remains above the European OECD average

Ireland’s reduction in child specific material deprivation follows positive trends seen across European OECD countries. As elsewhere at the European OECD level, fewer children in Ireland experience multiple forms of deprivation than in 2014. Ireland compares particularly well with regards to the very low number of households, 1.8%, reporting at least one child experiencing food deprivation, lower than the European OECD average of 2.8%, but less well for clothing deprivation at 7.5% of households reporting compared to the European OECD average of 4.5% (OECD, 2024[14]). However, a survey published in February 2023 indicates that a growing number of parents worry about not being able to provide their children with sufficient food. Thirteen percent of parents are ‘always worried’, while 29% are ‘sometimes worried’, representing an increase of 7 percentage points and 10 percentages respectively from when the same survey was completed ten months prior (Barnardos, 2023[16]).

Income poor children are more likely to be materially deprived but most materially deprived children are not income poor

In Ireland, as elsewhere in European OECD countries, the relative risk of material deprivation is higher for children in income-poor households. In Ireland, income poor children are around three times more likely than non-income poor children to experience child specific material deprivation, which is less than the European OECD average of four times more likely. The relative risk of material deprivation varies by deprivation type. In line with the European OECD average, in Ireland income-poor children are more than three times more likely to experience clothing deprivation and nearly two times more likely to live in poor quality housing. On the other hand, the relative risk of food deprivation is higher in Ireland than in other European OECD countries. Income poor children are ten times more likely than non-income poor children to be deprived of food, compared to the OECD average of around four times. Overall, 10% of income poor children in Ireland are deprived of food, compared to only 1% of non-income poor children. The relative risk of leisure deprivation is smaller, around 2.5 times, compared to the OECD average of three.

By and large, in Ireland most children experiencing child specific material deprivation do not come from income poor households. In 2021, out of the 13% of children experiencing child specific material deprivation in Ireland, only 2.5% are income poor while slightly under 11% are non-income poor. At the European OECD level, of the 11.6% of children experiencing materially deprivation, almost 4% are income poor while around 8% are non-income poor Figure 3.3. Or in other words, non-income poor children make up 81% of all materially deprived children in Ireland compared to the European OECD average of 67%. Only a few other countries have as large of or even larger number of non-income poor children making up the share of all materially deprived children, for example, Finland (89%) and Slovenia (80%). However, in these countries child specific material deprivation rates are much lower than in Ireland.

Ireland’s materially deprived children that are not income poor are in households whose incomes are well above the relative poverty line. The median equivalised disposable household income (i.e., an income after tax and transfers and adjusted for household size) of materially deprived children that are not income poor is €14 844, which is well above the relative income poverty threshold of €10 679. It is also almost twice that of €8 492 for materially deprived children that are income poor. Therefore, to alleviate children’s exposure to material deprivation, doing more than lifting household income further is needed.

Figure 3.3. Non-income poor children make up the bigger share of all materially deprived children in Ireland, more so than in other European OECD countries

In Ireland and across European OECD countries, living in a single-parent household increases children’s risk of experiencing income poverty and/or child specific material deprivation. Around 11% of materially deprived children in single-parent households in Ireland are income poor, while 30% are not classified as income poor. This compares to the European OECD average of 9% and 14% respectively. Similar levels of child specific material deprivation for non-income poor children in single-parent families are found in countries where child specific material deprivation is much higher, for example, Bulgaria (30%), Hungary (30%), Greece (34%) and Romania (33%) (OECD, 2024[14]).

Income poverty and material deprivation are disproportionately experienced by children living in single-parent families, as well as by children living in households with low work intensity, low educated parents and with parents reporting poor health (Regan and Maître, 2020[17]; Byrne and Treanor, 2020[18]). The persistence of these trends over time suggests that, despite increases in social assistance and in supports for families with children, the Irish social protection system is not fully adjusted to entirely protect children in those vulnerable situations from poverty and material deprivation (NESC, 2020[19]). The fact that children from non-income poor families - whose income may be well above the poverty line - experience material deprivation suggests that cash assistance alone cannot fix all problems of material deprivation.

How does socio-economic disadvantage affect children’s access to key service areas?

The introduction of the European Child Guarantee (European Council, 2021[20]) has helped draw attention to the importance of access to services for children’s well-being. Revolving around six key services (early childhood education and care; education, including school-based activities; at least one healthy meal a day health care; healthy nutrition; and adequate housing), the Child Guarantee seeks to ensure all children, including those from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds, have effective and free access to the first four services and effective access to the latter two (European Council, 2021[20]). With one eye on the European Child Guarantee, this section explores how socio-economic disadvantage currently affects children’s access to four of these key services - early childhood education and care, health services, school meals and adequate housing – in Ireland from a comparative perspective. Despite an effective reduction of income poverty due to income support, many children have unmet needs and/or limited access to services in these key areas.

Access to childcare

In recent years, Ireland has introduced measures that have significantly reduced the cost of childcare for families. Ireland came from the basis of comparatively high childcare costs at the OCED level and lower participation rate of very young children in ECEC compared to other European OECD countries (OECD, 2020[21]). In 2019, only 42% of two-year-olds accessed centre-based ECEC in Ireland, which is lower than in other European OECD countries, for example, France (60%) and the Netherlands (45%) but above the OECD average of 36% (Figure 3.4). Low participation in ECEC by two-year-old children in low-income households is more of an issue in Ireland than in other OECD countries. In 2019, only 18% of two-year olds in the bottom income tertile in Ireland accessed centre-based ECEC, compared to 69% of children in the top income tertile. At the OECD level, 30% of children in the bottom income tertile access centred-based ECEC, compared to 46% of children from the top income tertile, representing a smaller difference by socio-economic background. Slovenia has the same rate of overall participation in ECEC as Ireland, but a far greater share of children come from households in the bottom income tertile (39%). The situation is very different for the 3–5-year-olds. In 2019, 100% of 3-5 years olds in Ireland were enrolled in ECEC or in primary education as they benefit from the Early Childhood Education and Care (ECCE) scheme, which provides two years of preschool education before starting primary school. The ECCE scheme provides 15 hours of ECEC for 38 weeks of the programme year (OECD, 2022[22]; EC, 2021[23]).

Figure 3.4. Children in low-income households participate in ECEC at a much lower rate in Ireland

Before Ireland introduced the National Childcare Scheme (NCS) in 2019, the country had one the highest childcare costs in the OECD as a percentage of women’s full-time earnings (OECD, 2020[21]). The NCS was introduced in November 2019 with the objective to provide a progressive universal model for early childhood education and care and school-aged childcare. NCS represents a first step towards reform of the childcare system by streamlining all existing subsidies into a more accessible and parent-friendly claim process. Under this new scheme, three types of childcare subsidies for children over six months of age are provided:

A universal (i.e., not means-tested) subsidy for children up to fifteen years of age. Children over three who have not yet qualified for the ECCE are also eligible.
A means-tested subsidy for children up to fifteen years old. The subsidy rate varies depending on household income, the child's age and educational stage, and the number of children in the family; and it can be used towards paying for the cost of a registered childcare place for up to a maximum of 45 hours a week if a parent is working, studying, training, or meets certain criteria, which makes them unavailable to care for the child; otherwise, a 20-hour maximum applies.
A sponsor subsidy is available for children referred by certain specified sponsors on child welfare, child protection, family support or other specified grounds. These is no income assessment involved and the parent/s will pay no fees to the childcare provider.

The NCS is still in the early stages of roll-out, however already it has been effective at reducing childcare costs, particularly for households on lower incomes or living in areas of high deprivation (Paull, 2021[24]). Low-income households in Ireland now pay in line with – or even less than – the OECD average for childcare. In 2021, households headed by a lone parent earning the minimum wage paid nothing on net childcare costs (depending on fees charged by service provider), less than the OECD average of 5%. Two-parent households with both parents working and earning the minimum wage paid 6% of the average income on net childcare costs, less than the OECD average of 7%. So far, decreases in childcare costs for middle and high-earning households have been more modest. In 2021, two-parent household where both parents work and earn the average wage, childcare costs represent 29% of the average income, well above the OECD average of 14% (OECD, 2023[25]). It is expected that further changes to the NCS will reduce the burden on families further. For example, Budget 2023 allocated funding to increase the NCS minimum rate from €0.50 to €1.40, benefitting households on higher incomes, while the subsidy to households on lower incomes had no or only very small increases. Budget 2024 increased the NCS minimum rate again bringing up to €2.14.

A study looking at the impact of first year of NCS flagged reduced access to childcare and after-school care for some children in vulnerable families (Paull, 2021[24]). Compared to the NCS, in some instances, legacy childcare schemes provided children in vulnerable families with more hours. While the NCS does contain a provision to broaden access through a sponsorship scheme in which a fixed number of professionals or services can support families’ application for childcare on grounds of exceptional need, however this provision may need to be more flexible to capture broader family situations. Other issues flagged were receiving fewer subsidised hours than under legacy schemes and not meeting the work-study test to access ‘enhanced’ hours. The NCS may have influenced after-school care provision. Some providers reported offering fewer hours of after-school care or having stopped altogether, because of reduced demand from parents and/or the high administrative burden of the NCS for the lower number of hours involved (Paull, 2021[24]). A study on the impact of NCS on not-for-profit, community-based childcare provision found the NCS negatively impacted access to and participation in ECEC. The study suggests that changes to eligibility and capitation rates for the NCS, compared with those on the CCS Programme, are likely to result in financial instability of not-for-profit settings (Dalton, 2022[26]).

Several other developments are underway to sustain and improve the quality of ECEC services, in line with commitments in First 5, the Whole of Government Strategy for Babies, Young Children and their Families 2019-2028. Actions include moving to a graduate-led workforce, as part of Nurturing Skills (the Workforce Plan for Early Learning and Care and School-Age Childcare 2022-2028) and increases in minimum wage rates for those working in the sector with higher minimum wages for those in lead roles and with graduate qualifications, supported by increased funding for service providers through a new Core Funding programme (from September 2022). In addition, reforms are under way to strengthen quality supports for ECEC services, and to extend regulation and the National Childcare Scheme to non-relative childminders on a phased basis (in line with the National Action Plan for Childminding 2021-2028).

Access to health care

Historically, free access to health care for children has been means tested in Ireland. Households are eligible for a Medical Card, which provides free general practitioner care, in-patient hospital services, dental, optical, and aural services, and some personal and social care services if they earn under a certain income threshold. The current income threshold for a couple or single-parent household with dependent children is €226.50 per week, with the threshold increasing for each dependent child (HSE, 2021[27]). Ireland is in the process of expanding access to free general practitioner care for children aged 12 years and under. In 2015, Ireland started with free general practitioner (GP) care for children under six years of age, which included two periodic wellness checks for children at age two and five years of age. Budget 2023 extended this scheme to cover children ages six and seven pending the conclusion of consultations with GP representatives. In addition, Budget 2023 ended acute public hospital inpatient charges for children under 16 years of age in all public hospitals.

In Ireland, unmet need for health care is a particular issue for non-income poor children, especially those who are materially deprived. The 2015 introduction of free general practitioner care for under-sixes led to an increase in the number of visits to the GP by 25% among newly eligible children, suggesting that households faced financial barriers in accessing care, especially those on lower incomes (Nolan, 2017[28]). In 2021, in Ireland, the rate of unmet need for either a medical or dental examination for at least one child (0- to 15-year-olds) in the household was 5.4%, higher than the European OECD average of 4.2%, and much higher again than European OECD countries such as Sweden (2.5%) and Italy (1.2%). Significantly, Ireland’s rate of unmet health need is higher for non-income poor children who are materially deprived, reflecting income-poor children’s receipt of the Medical Card. Belgium and Finland are the only other European OECD countries where the rate of unmet health need for non-income poor is higher than that of the income poor, at 3.4% and 5.5% respectively (OECD, 2024[14]).

In Ireland, the rate of unmet health need for children who are income poor and/or materially deprived is much higher than for income poor children only. Almost 14.6% of income poor children and/or materially deprived children who are not income poor have an unmet health care need compared to only 3.3% of non-income poor children or non-materially deprived children (Figure 3.5). Increasing access to free healthcare for children in households above the Medical Card income threshold is needed.

Figure 3.5. Unmet need for healthcare is a particular issue for non-income poor children experiencing material deprivation in Ireland

Access to adequate nutrition

Adequate child nutrition is critical for healthy development, at birth and during infancy and during the school years as hunger may affect children’s capacity to focus their attention and to learn. By contrast, inadequate nutrition and obesity will have an impact on the health and well-being of children (OECD, 2021[29]). Tackling inadequate nutrition requires several types of action being undertaken to reduce the costs of healthy food and increase its availability, make the provision of school meals free and of good quality, and integrate food into an inclusive pedagogy (Guio, Marlier and Frazer, 2020[30]).

The high cost of good quality, nutritious food often prices low-income families out of maintaining healthy diets by limiting their choices to more processed and refined food-based diets as a cost-effective way of meeting daily calorific requirements (Madden, 2015[31]). Around one in ten parents/caregivers in Ireland report difficulties feeding their family, with one in five skipping meals to ensure that their children get enough to eat. Worries about not being able to provide children with sufficient meals is higher among parents who are not working compared to those who are, at 34% and 25% respectively (Amárach Research, 2022[32]).

There is evidence linking dietary quality to family social class. Fruit consumption among 7-8 years-old was found to be higher for children whose mothers had higher levels of education, while consumption of chips was higher for children whose mothers had lower levels of education. No difference in biscuit consumption by family background was found. Overall, 36% of 7-8 year-olds considered the most socially disadvantaged had the lowest dietary scoring, indicating the consumption of fewer food seen as beneficial for health, compared to 17% of 7-8 year-olds considered the most socially advantaged (ESRI, 2018[33]).

Children arriving at school hungry remains an issue in Ireland, particularly for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. In 2019, in Ireland, 20% of 10-year-olds reported arriving at school hungry, which is fewer than the OECD average of 27%. In Ireland, disadvantaged children are one and half times more likely than their advantaged peers to arrive at school hungry compared to most advantaged children, at 24% and 15% respectively (OECD, 2022[34]). The quality of nutrition varies with children’s socio-economic status and has consequences for child health. 32% of nine-year-olds in the lowest income fifth were overweight/obese, compared with 22% in the middle fifth and 14% in the highest fifth. Nine-year-olds of mothers with a low level of education or in the lowest income group have a lower rate of consumption of fresh fruit and higher rate of consumption of crisps and savoury snacks (ESRI, 2018[33]).

Schools are an excellent setting to reach children, teachers, families, and the surrounding community with low financial constraints born by families. A systematic review of 42 European interventions to promote healthy diet and obesity prevention provides strong evidence that multi-component interventions (food availability, education curriculum integration, and parent involvement) had relatively strong effects on dietary improvements among children (Oostindjer et al., 2017[35]).

Ireland is unusual in the European Union context in not providing a universal school meal programme. However, a targeted School Meals Programme is funded by the Department of Social Protection and there are plans underway to extend programme coverage. The Child Poverty and Well-being Programme Office will monitor the implementation of this programme expansion. The programme provides funding towards the provision of food through the allocation of a per pupil rate for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. However, availing schools are located in disadvantaged areas, which means that only children attending these schools as opposed to all low-income children can receive free school meals (Reilly, 2023[36]).

In 2022, around 1 600 schools and organisations participated in the Programme, reaching 260 000 children across Ireland, or around 28% of school-going population (Houses of the Oireachtais, 2023[37]). A recent evaluation of this Programme provided qualitative evidence of programme impact on school attendance and recommended to progressively expand programme coverage, first focusing on disadvantaged schools in the DEIS (Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools) programme located in areas with higher levels of deprivation (RSM Ireland, 2022[38]).

Education on nutrition and health is also critical. An adequate healthy diet can be inaccessible if parents do not have information to make healthy food choices or if they do not have the knowledge to prepare and cook fresh food. Parents are often unaware of when their child is not a healthy weight (Queally et al., 2018[39]) and they may not be fully aware of the consequences of being overweight or obese can have, for example, on child physical and mental health (Clark et al., 2020[40]).

Tackling inadequate nutrition can be enhanced through a cross-government approach to address the root causes of the many issues behind it. Ireland has a food poverty working group, which is tasked with looking at the drivers of food poverty and mitigation strategies, including the high cost of healthy food, the lack of emergency food provision in certain areas and the lack of information on good practices and on the consequences of inadequate nutrition (Children’s Right Alliance, 2022[41]). The Obesity Policy Action Plan 2016-2025 is a cross-government plan that contains action to address health and food education and measures to tackle inadequate nutrition.

Access to adequate housing

Access to good-quality housing plays an important role in children’s well-being (OECD, 2021[42]; Clair, 2019[43]). Most immediately, exposure to overcrowded or unsanitary housing conditions can jeopardise children’s physical health, including through infection and respiratory conditions such as asthma (OECD, 2021[42]; Beasley, Semprini and Mitchell, 2015[44]). But housing quality also matters for several other aspects of children’s well-being and development, including their social and emotional well-being. Children growing up in low-quality housing may be at greater risk of developing emotional and behaviour problems, for example, as well as of experiencing poorer mental health outcomes (OECD, 2021[42]). One potential reason is that poor-quality housing may add to the many stresses experienced by disadvantaged families and children.

Housing deprivation for children is increasing in Ireland, while on the decline at the European OECD level. In Ireland, the share of children in households reporting poor quality housing (i.e., problems with a leaking roof and/or damp ceilings, dampness in the walls, floors, or foundation and/or rot in window frames and door) has increased from 14.5% in 2014 to almost 18% in 2021. Denmark and Spain have seen similarly sized increases to Ireland (OECD, 2022[34]). Ireland is also one of several European OECD countries where the share of children experiencing severe housing deprivation is increasing. In Ireland, 3.1% of children experience severe housing deprivation compared to only 1.7% in 2014.2 Sweden and Greece have seen similar sized increases to Ireland, whereas in France and Spain increases have been larger. Although on the up, severe housing deprivation for children remains below the European OECD average of 5.4% (OECD, 2022[34]).

Homelessness is an extreme form of housing deprivation that has serious implications for child development and well-being, and later adult outcomes (OECD, 2019[45]). In Ireland, the number of children in homeless families has increased significantly in the past number of years. As of September 2023, there are 3 904 children from 1 892 families accessing emergency accommodation. Over half of these families are headed by a lone parent. Children make up 30% of the total population accessing emergency accommodation (DHLGH, 2023[46]). The Child Poverty and Well-being Programme Office will support implementation across all relevant policy commitments addressing family homeless and provide an enhanced focus on children and their needs.

How does socio-economic disadvantage affect children’s developmental outcomes?

Growing up in socio-economic disadvantage has important and long-lasting effects on children, including on the lives they will lead as adults. Children from disadvantaged households often fall behind in many areas of well-being and development, with effects that continue to limit their opportunities and outcomes – including their health and labour market outcomes – long after they reach adulthood (Clarke et al., 2022[47]). In Ireland, there is a substantial association between childhood poverty and the risk of experiencing poverty in adulthood, with the strength of this risk having gotten stronger over the past decade. Most of this relationship is explained through educational attainment and current employment situation (Curristan, Maître and Russell, 2022[48]).

Evidence from the Growing up in Ireland survey found that economic vulnerability (i.e., household income in the bottom quintile, difficulty making ends meet and material deprivation) is associated with poorer child outcomes across all dimensions of well-being. The only indicators for which experiencing economic vulnerability did not impact significantly were closeness of relationship and prosocial behaviours (Maître, Russell and Smyth, 2021[49]). The relationship between economic vulnerability and child outcomes were equally strong for both younger and older children, suggesting that effective policy interventions to combat child poverty can be made throughout a child’s life, and not just in early childhood. Indeed, preventing children from falling into poverty in middle childhood and adolescence, particular into persistent poverty, is likely to have a tangible effect across a whole range of outcomes (Maître, Russell and Smyth, 2021[49]).

Physical health outcomes

Child health outcomes are mixed in Ireland compared to other countries. Like many other European OECD countries, the estimated prevalence of childhood diseases and medical disorders is low. In 2019, the estimated prevalence of communicable, maternal, neonatal, and/or nutritional diseases (CMNN) was 144 per 1 000, compared to the OECD average of 209 per 1 000. Ireland’s low estimated prevalence of childhood diseases and medical disorders is in line with that of France and Iceland, and well below the United Kingdom (174 per 1 000) (OECD, 2022[34]).

At the same time, however, children in Ireland are less likely than in other OECD countries to positively self-rate their health. In 2017-18, only 31% of 11-, 13- and 15-year-olds rated their health as “excellent”, compared to the OECD average of 35%. While levels of self-rated health differ considerably across OECD countries, comparisons within countries point to large gaps in self-rated health along socio-economic lines. In Ireland, 25% of disadvantaged children self-rate their health as ‘excellent’, compared to 38% of advantaged children. Socio-economic differences are as big in Italy and Portugal, but smaller than the United Kingdom. France is the only OECD country where almost no difference by socio-economic lines exists. Boys are much more likely than its girls to self-rate their health as “excellent”, with this standing true for many OECD countries (OECD, 2022[34]).

Childhood obesity represents an increasingly important public health issue in Ireland and across the OECD. Excess weight is associated with a range of health conditions both in childhood and adulthood, as well as several social and emotional outcomes, including self-esteem, and children’s outcomes at school (OECD, 2019[50]). Around 19% of seven to 12-year-olds in Ireland are overweight or obese (Mitchell et al., 2020[51]). This estimate is comparable to those available for other OECD countries showing that 21% of 11-, 13- and 15-year-old school children are considered overweight or obese based on the World Health Organization’s definition (OECD, 2022[34]).

Health outcomes, such as body weight, depend on many factors, including food consumption, regular exercise, and access to green spaces. Ireland preforms well on these points. Ireland is second only to Finland in children’s rate of participation in regular physical activity. In 2017-18, in Ireland, over half of 11-, 13- and 15-year-olds (55%) reported usually engaging in vigorous physical activity outside of school at least four times per week, compared to only 32% in France and 44% in the United Kingdom (OECD, 2022[34]). Differences in participation by socio-economic lines are relatively small in Ireland. Half of disadvantaged children participate in regular physical activity, while less than two thirds of advantaged children do, whereas in the United Kingdom over one third of disadvantaged children (36%) participate in regular physical activity compared to half of advantaged children.

A declining number of children regularly consume sweets and sugary drink in Ireland, with consumption now below the OECD average. In 2017-18, only 21% of 11-, 13- and 15-year-olds in Ireland reported usually eating sweets (including chocolate) and/or drinking sugared soft drinks at least once a day, compared to the OECD average of 26%. Though regular consumption is higher for disadvantaged children across the OECD, the difference by children’s socio-economic background in Ireland is among the largest in the OECD at seven percentage point. This difference is much larger than in England (UK), where there is only a two-percentage point difference, but around the same as Italy (six percentage points) where overall regular consumption is higher (OECD, 2022[34]).

Learning outcomes

Children’s learning outcomes are relatively high in Ireland. Relative to other OECD countries, disadvantaged children make up a smaller share of low performers in international student assessment tests. For example, Ireland has fewer low performers in PISA 2018 than most other OECD countries. 15% of disadvantaged 15-year-olds were low performers in PISA 2018 (defined as attaining below Level 2 on all three core PISA subjects), compared to the OECD average of 14% (Figure 3.6). The United Kingdom has a similar number of disadvantaged children who are low performers in PISA 2018, whereas France and New Zealand have far more, at 24.2% and 19.3%.

In a similar vein, fewer disadvantaged 10-year-olds in Ireland are low achievers in PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study) reading assessment and the TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) assessment in two subjects, relative to other OECD countries. Less than 22% of disadvantaged 10-year-olds children are low performer in PIRLS, in line with Latvia and Poland. The performance gap between disadvantaged and advantaged 10-year-olds is smaller in Ireland than in most other OECD countries (OECD, 2022[34]). In 2016, around 26% (25.5%) of 10-year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds in Ireland were low achievers in two TIMSS assessment subjects, which is the same as Austria but higher than Northern Ireland (18%). Again, the performance gap between disadvantaged and advantaged 10-year-olds is smaller in Ireland than in most other OECD countries (OECD, 2022[34]).

Figure 3.6. Fewer disadvantaged 15-year-olds in Ireland are low performers in PISA

Socio-emotional and mental health outcomes

Reporting on life satisfaction can give a good indication of overall social and emotional well-being. Life satisfaction is on the decline for children in Ireland, with fewer now reporting a high level of life satisfaction than the OECD average. In 2018, only 26% of 15-year-olds reported a high level of life satisfaction, compared to 34% at the OECD level. Life satisfaction was higher in 2015, when over 34% of 15-year-olds in Ireland reported a high level of life satisfaction. This sharp decline suggests that Ireland should pay close attention to children’s social and emotional well-being (OECD, 2022[34]).

Reporting on subjective health complaints can give an indication of the prevalence of psychological distress among children, including at the non-clinical level. Slightly fewer children in Ireland report multiple subjective health complaints than the OECD average, however the social gradient is high. In 2017-18, 33% of 11-, 13- and 15-year-old school children in Ireland reported multiple subjective health complaints, slightly more than the OECD average of 36%. Forty-one percent of disadvantaged children reported multiple subjective health complaints, compared to only 30% of advantaged children (OECD, 2022[34]). Though this difference is large, it is not as big as in England (UK), for example, where disadvantaged children are 16-percentage points more likely to report multiple health complaints. Like other OECD countries, there are gender differences with more girls than boys reporting multiple subjective health complaints, at 37% and 27% respectively. This difference is significant. It is similar to the United Kingdom, yet not as big as in many OECD countries, for instance, Portugal where disadvantaged children are 17 percentage point more likely to report multiple health complaints and Italy and Sweden where they are 21 percentage points more likely. Reporting rates rise as children get older across the OECD.

Prevalence of actual child and adolescent mental illness has increased over time across countries. While data on mental health disorders among Irish youth is limited, referrals to community Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) have increased in recent years, with fewer than half of children who are in need successful at accessing CAMHS (Lynch et al., 2022[52]). Referrals to hospital for self-harm increased by 22% between 2007 and 2016, and most significantly among 10-14 year olds (Griffin et al., 2018[53]), while during the pandemic the number of crisis psychiatry assessments of older adolescents in adult emergency departments more than trebled (McLoughlin et al., 2022[54]). The percentage of 15-24 year olds reporting positive mental health has decreased from 21% in 2015 to 12% in 2021, and the percentage with probable mental health problems has increased from 10% to 20% during this time (DCECIY, 2022[55]).

Available evidence suggests that across countries the mental health gap between children in relatively advantaged and disadvantaged socio-economic circumstances is growing (Elgar et al., 2015[56]; Collishaw et al., 2019[57]). The effects of financial stress on children and parents’ relationships and family processes are important factors driving this gap. Evidence from the Growing up in Ireland survey highlighted that subjective financial strain, measured as the ease with which the household can make ends meet, is predictive of externalised behavioural difficulties in adolescent boys. Material deprivation, measured as lacking one of more items in the official material deprivation indicator for Ireland, is predictive of externalised behavioural difficulties in adolescent boys and internalised in younger boys, but has no effect on girls’ behavioural outcomes (Gibbons, Sprong and Chzhen, 2023[58]).

Children suffering from anxiety disorders is a very big issue in Ireland, especially for girls. Ireland’s overall estimated prevalence of anxiety disorders is the second highest in the OECD, while the rate for girls is also the second highest. The estimated prevalence of anxiety disorders in Ireland among 0-19 years old is 55 per 1 000, well above the OECD average of only 35 per 1 000. While girls suffer more than boys from anxiety disorders across OECD countries, Ireland’s estimated prevalence for girls is the second highest in the OECD at 71 in 1 000, just behind Portugal where overall prevalence is higher. In fact, both girls and boys in Ireland suffer more from anxiety disorders than the overall OECD average (see Figure 3.7).

Figure 3.7. Childhood anxiety disorders are high in Ireland, especially among girls

Children’s sense of feeling supported and cared for, especially by family, is a fundamental component of social and emotional well-being. Children’s positive perception of family support is lower in Ireland than in other OECD countries. In 2017-18, only 63% of 11-, 13- and 15-year-olds in Ireland reported feeling like they receive a high level of support from their families, lower than the OECD average of 73%. Conversely, a relatively high number of children in Ireland feel that they receive an overall low level of family support. In 2017-28, 20% of 11-, 13- and 15-year-olds in Ireland reported feeling like they receive a low level of support from their families, much higher than the OECD average of 12% (OECD, 2022[34]).

Disadvantaged children are less likely than advantaged children to report a high-level of family support, at 56% and 66% respectively, and they are also slightly more likely to report low level of family support (23%) than advantaged children (20%) (OECD, 2022[34]). Though it is not yet fully understood why family support differs by socio-economic status, among the possible reasons are that disadvantaged households may face greater time constraints or may have less expertise on how to support children and on emotionally nurturing activities (OECD, 2022[59]). Difference in the percentage of children reporting high family support by socio-economic status in Ireland is like those in the United Kingdom and Italy, yet bigger than Bulgaria and Norway.

Having a sense of meaning in life is also an indicator of subjective well-being that can be strongly challenged during adolescence. This seems to be particularly the case in Ireland where only 60% of 15-year-olds in Ireland agree (or strongly agree) with the statement "I have a clear sense of what gives meaning to my life" against 69% on average across the OECD. Nevertheless, the difference by socio-economic background is smaller in Ireland than in most other OECD countries (OECD, 2022[34]).

Conclusion

The breadth and depth of social inequalities in child well-being mean that policy efforts are needed on multiple fronts. Different areas of child well-being and different aspects of children’s lives are frequently inter-connected; therefore, policy efforts are likely to be fully effective only when designed and delivered in a co-ordinated and coherent way, with government departments, agencies, and other actors from within and outside government working together around shared objectives. Several policy mechanisms spanning a range of government departments are needed to address the current challenges of child poverty, in particular alleviating material deprivation among children living in non-poor households and addressing the rise in child and youth mental distress.

Access to services is a key issue, particularly timely access to appropriate mental health services. A persistent issue for children experiencing mental health difficulties in Ireland is that they are too often admitted to adult psychiatric units, which do not offer age-appropriate facilities, nor a programme of activities appropriate to age and ability (Mental Health Commission, 2022[60]). Moreover, children and young people are not provided access to age-appropriate advocacy services, an explanation of their rights nor information about the hospital ward in language they could understand (Children’s Right Alliance, 2022[61]). Appropriately addressing the mental health needs of children remains a key challenge in Ireland, as it is also in most other OECD countries. It requires mobilising many actors to develop appropriate referral pathways, based on a good understanding of the different needs of children, including children with acute clinical needs, as well as identifying opportunities for earlier intervention to avert the need for more intensive or inpatient support.

Finally, the strong association between socio-economic disadvantage and the risk of children experiencing multiple forms of material deprivation and/or low social and emotional well-being highlights the need to develop an integrated data collection and monitoring system. Such an information system should make it possible to assess children’s needs across all these areas, as well as to monitor children’s access to different services and to complement information on income supports families may be receiving. Strengthening the data collection and monitoring system in this direction is crucial, to steer policies in such a way that they can better address the cross-cutting well-being issues facing socio-economically disadvantaged children.

Youth well-being outcomes

Introduction

As discussed in Chapter 2, over the past three decades, Ireland has introduced significant policy, legislative and organisational reforms to reduce child poverty and promote better outcomes for children and young people under the age of 25. In the context of these reforms, this section on youth outcomes compares the situation in Ireland with those in other OECD countries across a range of policy areas and indicators: education, employment, social inclusion and health, relationship with public institutions, participation in public and political life, and representation in the central government workforce and state institutions. The purpose of the comparison is not to be exhaustive – the Children and Young People’s indicator set, previously called the BOBF indicator set (DCEDIY, 2022[62]), already provides a very comprehensive picture of youth outcomes in Ireland (DCEDIY, 2023[63])– but rather to put Ireland in an international context on a selected number of indicators. This overview follows the structure of the OECD Recommendation on Creating Better Opportunities for Young People, which was adopted in June 2022 (OECD, 2022[64]). This legal instrument – adhered to by all OECD countries – outlines how countries can implement government-wide strategies to support young people, including through skills, education, employment, social policies, effective public governance arrangements for strengthening the relationship between young people and government, and addressing age-based inequalities. It builds on the Updated OECD Youth Action Plan (OECD, 2021[65]), and draws on the perspectives raised by young people themselves in a youth consultation (OECD, 2021[66]).

Selected socio-economic outcomes of young people in Ireland and the OECD

Youth education outcomes

Ireland is a top performer among OECD countries regarding educational attainment of young people. At 63%, Ireland has one of the highest shares of young people holding a tertiary degree in 2022, well above the OECD average of 47% (see Figure 3.8). A decade before, in 2011, these figures stood at 47% and 38% respectively, reflecting not only a positive return on Ireland’s efforts to improve educational attainment, but also an evolution that is happening at a considerably faster pace than in other OECD countries. Such efforts have been taking place while Ireland has been investing heavily in skill-intensive sectors related to technology, evidenced by indicators such as the Digital Economy and Society Index that ranked Ireland as the leading country in the EU on the integration of digital technology in 2019 (European Commission, 2019[67]).

Figure 3.8. Ireland’s educational attainment record is among the best in the OECD

However, certain groups are still underrepresented within higher education, in particular young Irish Travellers and Roma, socio-economically disadvantaged adolescents, and young people with a disability (Department of Education Ireland, 2021[69]) (Higher Education Authority and Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, 2022[70]). The government’s new national policy framework for children and young people, Young Ireland (DCEDIY, 2023[63])acknowledges the priority to work on inclusion in education and highlights the steps the government is taking through the fourth National Access Plan to increase the participation and success for students in vulnerable situations, in particular those who are socio-economically disadvantaged, students with a disability, and students from the Traveller and Roma communities (Higher Education Authority and Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, 2022[70]).

Ireland has a very low share (5%) of young people with below upper secondary qualifications, significantly lower than the OECD average (14%) (see Figure 3.8). In 2011, the shares were respectively 15% and 19%, implying a particularly steep improvement for Ireland and reflecting a successful implementation of multiple policy efforts targeting early school leaving (Department of Education, 2017[71]). This outcome is important, as data from across OECD countries show that people who did not complete upper secondary education by their late twenties face a higher likelihood of becoming unemployed or inactive than those who did complete it (OECD, 2019[72]).

In line with the good performance in educational attainment, Ireland scores above the OECD average in the International Student Assessment (PISA) for reading, mathematics and science, and the reading skills of 15-year-olds in Ireland rank among the highest in the OECD (see Figure 3.9). Ireland is also the only OECD country where PISA reading performance improved significantly for both advantaged and disadvantaged students between 2008 and 2018 (OECD, 2019[73]).

Young Ireland underpins BOBF’s Aim 2.4 “Achieving in education” that education is not just about knowledge acquisition but also about learning critical skills that can be applied across all life and career domains. The current reform of the Senior Cycle in Ireland acknowledges the role of education systems in strengthening such skills (Department of Education, 2022[74]). Securing balance in skills through a responsive and diversified supply of skills is also a priority in the OECD Skills Strategy for Ireland, which was developed together with key stakeholders in Ireland (OECD, 2023[75]).

Figure 3.9. The reading skills of 15-year-olds in Ireland rank among the highest in the OECD

Unlike in most OECD countries, all upper secondary (ISCED 3) and 96% of post-secondary non-tertiary (ISCED 4) students in vocational education and training (VET) in Ireland participate in combined school-and-work based programmes (OECD, 2020[77]). On average in other OECD countries, only 30% of upper secondary VET students are enrolled in combined school-and-work based programmes, as school-based programmes are more common (see Figure 3.10). VET in Ireland is usually not offered within the second level system, while VET programmes within post-secondary non-tertiary Further Education and Training (FET) include apprenticeships, traineeships combining learning in an education/training setting and the workplace, and post leaving certificate courses (PLC) (Cedefop, 2021[78]). Work-based learning is often seen as a powerful vehicle for developing workplace skills and promoting productivity of the labour force. However, such programmes can face challenges in engaging employers to provide work placements, in making apprenticeship attractive to young people who might otherwise pursue academic studies, and in delivering skills that are not only immediately valuable but support career development (Musset, 2019[79]).

Nevertheless, the attractiveness of VET has been traditionally low in Ireland, with only a small number of upper secondary VET learners, in part because many learners prefer continuing higher education upon leaving compulsory education. In 2018, the share of Irish upper secondary students (aged 15-19) who opted for VET after graduation was only 10.7%, over three times smaller than the OECD average of 36.7% (OECD, 2020[77]).

Moderate exposure to the labour market is another way to smoothen the school-to-work transition. Ireland has a higher share of young people (aged 15-24) combining work and studies (25.5%) than OECD countries on average (16.9%) (see Figure 3.11). However, three quarters of this group in Ireland work on a part-time basis (76.1%), thus lowering the potentially negative impact of combining work and studies on school performance. Studies have indeed suggested that work experience while studying can not only improve young people’s prospects of graduating through newly acquired skills, but it might also help them to decide what to do after graduation (Quintini, 2015[80]). At a more general level, promoting a combination of work and study can help create a link between the labour market and the education system in a country where young people have a clear preference for prolonged higher education, like in Ireland.

Figure 3.10. Enrolment in combined school-and-work based programmes is much higher in Ireland than in other OECD countries

Figure 3.11. Combining school and work is more common in Ireland than in the OECD

Youth employment outcomes

About half of all young people aged 15 to 24 in Ireland are employed. At 47.8% in 2022, Ireland’s youth employment rate is higher than the OECD average of 42.9% (Figure 3.12). Gender differences in the employment rate are minimal: 48.0% for men and 47.6% for women. The employment rates are higher in Ireland than the OECD average for all youth age cohorts: 15–19-year-olds (28.3% in Ireland versus 24.9% in the OECD); 20–24-year-olds (68.2% versus 59.5% respectively); and 25–29-year-olds (82.3% versus 76.3% respectively).

Figure 3.12. Youth employment rates in Ireland are higher than the OECD average

Among those in dependent employment, Ireland has a slightly lower share of 15–24-year-olds employed under temporary contracts than OECD countries on average (33.0% compared to 35.8% respectively) (see Figure 3.13). Even so, the share is nearly four times higher than the temporary employment share for the total workforce in Ireland (9%). The considerable disparity between age cohorts and the rapid increase in the share of temporary contracts among young people (up from 22% in 2008) suggests that temporary contracts are becoming a standard part of early careers, with new entrants to the job market expected to work on a temporary basis initially (McGinnity et al., 2021[81]).

For the first time since the global financial crisis of 2008, youth unemployment in Ireland was below the OECD average in 2022, at 9.8% among 15–24-year-olds compared with 10.9% in the OECD. While Ireland’s youth unemployment rate was nearly double the OECD’s average in 2012 – at 30.8% and 16.5% respectively – and the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic took longer – Ireland’s rate stood at 14.5% in 2021 compared with 12.8% in the OECD – youth unemployment in Ireland has finally dropped below the OECD and EU-27 averages. The drop in unemployment was noticeable among both young women and young men, as well as among older youth (20-24- and 25–29-year-olds), with the exception of the youngest cohort (15–19-year-olds), where the Irish unemployment rate remained above the OECD average in 2022.

Ireland also has a relatively low share of young people who are neither in employment, education, or training (NEETs) compared with other OECD countries, at 11.8% among 15–29-year-olds in 2021 compared to 14.8% in the OECD on average. Among those who are neither in employment, education, or training in Ireland, about two-thirds are inactive (i.e., not in the labour market) and the remaining third are unemployed (i.e., actively looking for a job). Young women account for 49% of the NEETs in Ireland, compared to 46% in the OECD on average. Looking at the reasons, 56% of female NEETs in Ireland say they are inactive for caring/family reasons (compared to 52% in the OECD on average) while 16% are ill or disabled. Among inactive male NEETs, 38% are ill or disabled, 27% are in informal education or training and 11% are discouraged i.e., they believe no work is available (OECD calculations based on labour force survey data).

Figure 3.13. Temporary employment is less frequent among young people in Ireland than among their peers in the OECD

While public employment services in Ireland have been given more resources in recent years and have been reorganised to help workers into employment more effectively (OECD, 2022[82]), support for young jobseekers can be further improved. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, less than one third (28.6%) of young jobseekers (aged 15 to 24) relied on the public employment services in Ireland as one of the methods for their job search, a share well below the OECD average (38.3%) and the average for the 30-65 age cohort in Ireland (58.3%) (see Figure 3.14). Furthermore, data for 2018 reveal that 57.1% of those registered in the Youth Guarantee scheme at any point during the year had been waiting for a job or training offer for more than four months, well above the EU average of 48.6% (European Commission, 2020[83]). The same report shows that around two-thirds (67.9%) of those leaving the Youth Guarantee scheme in 2018 were known to be in a positive situation (i.e., employed or in training/education) six months later, significantly above the EU average of 50.3%.

Ireland’s national employment services strategy, Pathways to Work 2021-2025, aims to improve support for young people through increased engagement with young jobseekers who are most distant from the labour market and a focused service to young jobseekers who are more job ready (Government of Ireland, 2021[84]). However, the first Progress Report of the strategy shows that several of the measures for young people are unlikely to be met (Labour Market Advisory Council, 2023[85]).

Figure 3.14. The share of young jobseekers in Ireland who contact the public employment services for support is lower than in many other OECD countries

Social inclusion and health outcomes of young people

Nearly two in three young people aged 20 to 29 years in Ireland continue living with their parents. At 63%, this share is much higher than in OECD countries on average (49%) (see Figure 3.15), and it has been increasing faster during the last decade (OECD, 2021[86]). While the share of young people aged 20 to 29 living in rental housing in Ireland (47%) is just above the OECD average (45%), the gap between young people who rent and the general renting population is particularly wide in Ireland (19 percentage points compared to 10 percentage points for the OECD average) (OECD, 2021[86]). Whilst more than 70% of 35–65-year-olds own their home, only 30% of 16–34-year-olds do so.

Housing is indeed a complex issue that disproportionally challenges young people. Availability and finance-related issues, such as inability to afford a deposit to buy a home or to qualify for a mortgage, tend to be the most significant reasons for the large share of young people in the rental market, or for living with their parents/together with other young people (OECD, 2021[86]). According to the 2020 OECD Risks that Matter survey, three quarters of young people in Ireland (75.0%) report that securing or maintaining affordable housing is a major long-term concern, compared to 60.5% in the OECD on average (OECD, 2021[87]).

Social housing is therefore an important source of affordable housing for young people. In a handful OECD countries for which data is available (including Ireland), over 15% of young people live in social housing. However, social housing is in short supply in most countries, representing around 7% of the total housing stock on average across the OECD. In the case of Ireland, the share of social rental dwellings in the total housing stock did not grow at all between 2010 and 2018, stagnating around 12.7% (OECD, 2021[86]). This stagnation was partially compensated by schemes such as the Housing Assistance Payment (HAP). The number of households (of any age) in HAP tenancies rose from 420 in 2014 to more than 60 000 by the end of 2021 (Central Statistics Office Ireland, 2020[88]; Central Statistics Office Ireland, 2022[89]).

Moreover, high, and rising rents put additional pressure on young people to save up for a deposit, which might worsen their overrepresentation in the rental market. While rent prices increased at a faster pace than general inflation between 2006 and 2020 in many OECD countries, Ireland is one of the most affected countries, where the increase of rent prices was more than a third faster than consumer price inflation (OECD, 2021[86]).

Figure 3.15. Nearly two in three young people in Ireland live with their parents, a share that is considerably higher than the OECD average

Young people (18-24 years) are overrepresented in the homeless population in Ireland, accounting for 17% of all adults accessing emergency accommodation (July 2022) and 12.2% of total homelessness (December 2021), while data from the 2016 census indicate that they only account for about 11% of adults nationally (Government of Ireland, 2023[90]). Moreover, there has been a rapid deterioration in recent years, with the number of emergency accommodation requests among young people increasing by 70% between December 2020 to July 2022, compared to only 26.5% for the total population. Six cohorts have been identified as being of heightened vulnerability: care leavers, people with disabilities, young (single) parents, members of the Traveller community and the LGBTI+ community, and individuals leaving prison services. There is also a pronounced gender split when disaggregated by household type: 65% of singles are male, while 65% of those in families are female (Government of Ireland, 2023[90]).

Overall, poverty among young people in Ireland is considerably below the OECD average (see Figure 3.16). In 2019, 10.4% of the 16-29-year-olds living in Ireland had incomes below 60% of the mean equalised income, commonly defined as the threshold for low income or relative poverty. This share is around half of the OECD average for this age group, which equals 20.5%. Unlike the average pattern in OECD countries where the working-age population generally records the lowest poverty rate of all age cohorts, Ireland’s poverty rate increases with age, being 12.1% for the working-age population and 14.2% for senior citizens. While disposable income of young people and single person households are especially affected by recent inflationary pressures (Central Bank of Ireland, 2022[91]; McQuinn et al., 2022[92]), recent data from the Survey of Income and Living Conditions (SILC) show that the risk of poverty among young people in Ireland, aged 18 to 34, decreased between 2020 and 2022 (Central Statistics Office Ireland, 2023[93]).

Figure 3.16. Youth poverty in Ireland is considerably below the OECD average

Nearly one in four young persons in Ireland receive out-of-work benefits – such as unemployment benefits, social assistance, or disability benefits – placing Ireland eight highest in the OECD ranking (see Figure 3.17). In 2019, around 23.3% of the Irish youth population (aged 16-29) received some type of out-of-work benefit, nearly double the OECD average of 12.7%. The shares of young people on unemployment benefits (13%) and on incapacity-related benefits (8.2%) are both high compared with OECD countries on average. The share of young people receiving unemployment benefits in Ireland rose steeply after the global financial crisis, from 10% in 2007 to 28% in 2012. This figure has been steadily declining with the Irish economic recovery (13% in 2019), but it remains considerably above the OECD average (4%). Relatively high rates of youth unemployment, temporary work contracts, and part-time workers all contribute to the high share of young people receiving unemployment-related benefits. In addition, low levels of education among people with disabilities, insufficient activation for people on disability benefits, as well as a fragmented disability benefit system and widespread stigma on their capacity to engage in the labour market all contribute to one of the OECD’s highest shares of young people receiving disability benefits (OECD, 2021[94]).

The COVID-19 pandemic and the measures implemented to contain it have had wide-reaching implications for both the physical and mental health of young people in Ireland as in the OECD overall. Fear, uncertainty, school closures and prolonged periods of social isolation seriously disrupted the lives and routines of young people at a critical time of their physical and social development. Available evidence for EU countries suggests that symptoms of depression amongst young people more than doubled in many European countries (OECD/European Union, 2022[95]). In virtually all European countries for which data are available, young people reported poorer mental health than older age groups in 2021, which is a reversal of the pre-pandemic situation when the share of young people reporting symptoms of depression was typically lower than the population average.

Data for Ireland confirm the worsening mental health trend for young people: while in 2016, 8% of young men and 17% of young women aged 15 to 24 were considered as having a probable mental health problem (as measured by the Mental Health Inventory-5), these figures rose to 13% and 27% respectively by 2021 (Department of Health, 2021[96]). At the same time, the share of 15–24-year-olds displaying optimal levels of mental health (measured by the Energy and Vitality Index) dropped sharply, down from 21% in 2012 to 12% in 2021. Ireland also ranks amongst the countries with the highest suicide rates among 15–19-year-olds (7.7 per 100 000 in 2015-17, compared to 4.3 per 100 000 on average in the EU-27) (OECD/European Union, 2020[97]).

Figure 3.17. Receipt of unemployment and disability benefits are both high in Ireland, compared with the OECD average

Youth mental health is a Spotlight” (see Chapters 4 and 8) in the new national policy framework for children and young people, Young Ireland, which will provide a further opportunity to progress collaborative working in this area (DCEDIY, 2023[98]). In particular the policy framework “Sharing the Vision - A Mental Health Policy for Everyone” published in 2020 aims to enhance the provision of mental health services and supports across a broad continuum, from mental health promotion, prevention, and early intervention to acute and specialist mental health service delivery (HSE, 2020[99]).

Moreover, the risk of poor mental health has a social gradient, being higher for young people in precarious financial circumstances and at risk of exclusion. Data from Eurofound’s Living, working and COVID-19 e-survey found that young people aged 18-29 who perceived their household to have financial difficulties were significantly more likely to be at risk of depression (WHO-5 mental well-being score) over the course of the pandemic. The share was particularly high in Ireland, reaching 81% for those who reported financial difficulties and 59% for those who did not (see Figure 3.18).

Physical and mental health are closely related; physical activity is a protective factor for good mental health, and low physical activity can contribute to mental health issues in children and adolescents. About one in two 15-year-old girls and one in three 15-year-old boys in Ireland experienced multiple health complaints in 2018, such as feeling “low” or irritable, experiencing headaches, stomach aches or backaches, or having difficulties falling asleep (see Figure 3.19). The rates in Ireland are close or equal to the EU average. Overweight and obesity is less an issue in Ireland, which has one of the lowest rates among EU countries, even amongst the least affluent families where obesity rates usually tend to be significantly higher (OECD/European Union, 2020[97]). Tobacco smoking rates and heavy drinking, two other important risk factors to health, are also relatively low among adolescents in Ireland compared to their peers in other EU countries.

Figure 3.18. The share of young people at risk of depression in Ireland is the highest among EU countries

Figure 3.19. About one in two girls and one in three boys in Ireland report multiple health complaints, close to the EU average

Youth outcomes from a public governance perspective

Relationship between public institutions and young people

Young people’s trust in public institutions and government compared to other age groups.

According to the 2021 OECD Trust Survey, few young people trust their government in Ireland. Only 2 in 10 (or 21%) young people (aged 18-34) surveyed reported trusting their government, placing Ireland significantly below the OECD average (37%) (Figure 3.20). Further, while young people across OECD countries tend to trust their government less than older age groups, Ireland shows the widest disparities. The biggest gap is shown between young people (18-29) and those over 50, with a 38-percentage point (p.p.) difference, compared to a gap of 9 p.p. on average between both age groups across OECD countries (OECD, 2022[100]).

In 2016, the Growing Up In Ireland longitudinal study posed a question on trust in public institutions to 17- to 18-year-olds in the Cohort of ’98 3 (ESRI, 2018[101]). Results on self-reported data showed that respondents placed high trust in the Gardai (74% of respondents reported high trust), and relatively high trust in the healthcare system, the education system, and the courts (between 61% to 68%). A majority also expressed trust in Ireland’s social welfare system (53%). In turn, only 13% of respondents expressed trust in politicians. Young women tended to express higher confidence in the Gardai (78% vs. 70% expressing a great deal or quite a lot of confidence) but had lower confidence in the courts system than young men (57% vs. 64%). Young people in the lowest income quintile were also more likely to distrust An Garda Síochána (by 18 p.p.), the courts system (by 16 p.p.), and politicians (by 9 p.p.) than those in the highest income quintile. Further, telling differences exist across age groups regarding experiences of discrimination when accessing public services. In 2019, the percentage of young people aged 18-24 reporting experiences of discrimination when accessing public services was 19%, compared to 13.5% for those aged 25-44, 8.5% for ages 45-64, and 7.9% for those aged 65 and above (DCEDIY, 2022[102]).

Drivers of trust in government are varied and complex, but data across OECD countries shows that access to and representation in decision-making processes, satisfaction with public services, being able to obtain reliable information, low political polarisation and lower inequalities across age groups are all conducive to higher trust (OECD, 2022[100]).

Figure 3.20. .Young people’s trust in government in Ireland ranks below the OECD average, with important differences compared to other age groups (2021)

Young people’s satisfaction with democracy, compared to other age groups or relative to total population

Latest data available from the European Social Survey (2018) shows that young people (15-29) in Ireland ranked their satisfaction with democracy (on a scale of 0=extremely dissatisfied to 10=extremely satisfied) at par with the OECD average of 6 (European Social Survey, 2018[103]). The OECD countries with highest averages of satisfaction with democracy among young people are Switzerland (average rate of 8), Denmark (8) and Norway (7). While satisfaction with democracy does not differ significantly across age groups in Ireland, significant differences can be observed across young people from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Those reporting they considered that their household income permitted them to 'live comfortably' had a mean satisfaction with democracy of 6.35 compared to a mean of 3.9 among young people reporting that it was “very difficult” to live on their current household income (European Social Survey, 2018[103]).

Participation of young people in public and political life

Voting and running for office in national and subnational elections by age group

On average, young people in Ireland tend to see voting as an important way to exercise their civic rights. When asked their views on how important it was to vote to be a good citizen, young people in Ireland predominantly said it was important, scoring a mean rate of 7.5 on a scale of 0 being “extremely unimportant” to 10 being “extremely important”, close to the average across OECD countries in the European Union (7.7) (Eurobarometer, 2021[104]).

Longitudinal data from the Growing Up In Ireland study shows that 35% of surveyed young people in the Cohort of 98’ were eligible to vote in the 2016 national election but only half of those (51%) registered to vote. Of those eligible, 35% cast their vote, representing only 12% of surveyed 20-year-olds (ESRI, 2021[105]). By 2019, the proportion of voter registrations had increased to 72% among surveyed young people, but differences were shown depending on their socioeconomic background (ESRI, 2021[105]). Young people whose parents had received lower secondary education or below were less likely to be registered to vote (62%) compared to those whose parent had received a tertiary education (78%). Young adults in education and training were more likely to be registered (77%) than those in employment (63%) or those who were not in employment, educating or training (NEET) (46%) (ESRI, 2021[105]).

Lower participation in elections among young people of voting age also may point to age-specific barriers. Among 18- to 30-year-olds in Ireland, the most cited barriers to voting in local and national elections included a lack of understanding of political issues (17% of participants cited this reason), challenges to understand jargon or political speak (17%), not feeling confident to express their opinions (14%), not feeling heard by decision-makers (13%) and not having the time to vote (13%).4 In comparison, the top three reasons that were cited on average across European OECD countries included not being interested (15%), not feeling heard by decision-makers (13%), and not having a good enough understanding of issues (11%) (Eurobarometer, 2021[104]).

Political party membership by age group

Most major political parties in Ireland have a youth branch. These bodies enable young people to take part in party politics and provide a platform for younger voices to inform political debate. Findings from 2018 show that 4% of young people in Ireland (ages 15-29) were members in a political party (OECD average: 4%), compared to 3% for ages 30-49 (OECD average 4%): and 5% for people aged 50 and over (OECD average: 5%) (European Social Survey, 2018[103]). In Iceland (11%), Spain (8%), France (6%) and Norway (6%) the share of young people who are member of a political party is highest. In line with much of the evidence discussed above, important differences in young people’s political party membership can be observed depending on their household income. Young people self-reporting that they lived ‘comfortably’ in their current household income were 9 p.p. more likely to have worked in a political party than those finding it ‘very difficult’ (European Social Survey, 2018[103]).

Young people’s participation in civic activities compared to other age groups or relative to total population

For many young people, participating in volunteering activities and joining youth organisations offers a way to avoid social exclusion, practice active citizenship, and boost their skills and competences (OECD, 2020[106]). Several youth organisations supported by the State provide opportunities for young people to volunteer and to take part in leisure-time youth activities in their communities and internationally. These organisations deliver services for young people within their communities to support the development of their personal and social skills and provide safe spaces to connect with peers and mentors. Ireland also has a national youth award programme, Gaisce – the President’s Award, which supports young people aged 14 – 25 to develop their personal skills and active citizenship.

Data from 2021 shows that 23% of 16- to 30-year-olds in Ireland report having joined a youth organisation, compared to 14% across the EU. Differences regarding participation in youth organisations were observed across several dimensions. For instance, 31% of young people from small or mid-size towns reported taking part in a youth organisation in 2017, compared to 24% in rural villages and 21% in large towns. Those in the most difficult financial situations were also 17 p.p. more likely to take part in youth organisations than those who were most financially secure, underlining their critical importance for social cohesion and participation. Differences across other factors including gender, disability and migrant background were less statistically significant (DCEDIY, 2023[107]).

Regarding volunteering participation more broadly, in 2021, Ireland had one of the highest youth (ages 15 to 29) volunteering participation rates of OECD countries 5 with 29% of respondents reporting having recently partaken in volunteering activities, compared to an OECD average of 23%. However, vis-a-vis other age groups in the country, young people in Ireland were slightly less likely to participate in volunteering activities than older people, with the biggest gap (by -5 p.p.) being observed with people in the 30-49 age bracket (Gallup World Poll, 2022[108]).

Longitudinal data of young people in Ireland shows that self-reported volunteer participation rates among 20-year-olds rise to 34% (ESRI, 2021[105]). Further, important differences were observed depending on young peoples’ socio-economic background. For instance, youth with a parent with a higher level of education were more likely to have volunteered (41% tertiary education level versus 27% secondary education level or less) in the last six months. Similarly, only 30% of young people whose family was in the lowest income quintile had volunteered, compared to 40% in the highest income quintile. Finally, 20-year-olds in education or training were more likely to volunteer (37%) compared to those in employment (27%) or those who were NEET (26%).

Among the most cited barriers to volunteering, young people pointed to a lack of confidence to express opinions (cited by 19% of 15–29-year-olds), not being asked or invited to volunteer (17%), not having a good enough understanding of the issues for which they could volunteer (16%), and not having the time to volunteer (15%) (Eurobarometer, 2021[104]).

Young people’s participation in non-institutionalised channels of political life

Young people in Ireland tend to prefer using non-institutionalised 6 over institutionalised channels to take part in public and political life (See Figure 3.21). According to the 2021 Flash Eurobarometer Youth Survey, the most popular forms of participation among Irish youth included creating or signing petitions (which 44% of respondents had reportedly engaged in during 2022), posting opinions online or on social media about political issues (32%), volunteering for charities or campaigning (30%), and using hashtags or changing profile pictures to show support for a political issue (30%). In contrast, more institutionalised forms of engagement received lower participation scores, with less than 1 in 3 young respondents mentioning they had voted (29%), contacted politicians (19%) and taken part in public consultations (13%) (Eurobarometer, 2021[104]). That is despite some of the actions considered by young people to be most effective (namely voting and contacting a politician) were also among those that young people least tended to engage in.

Figure 3.21. Young people in Ireland tend to participate more in non-institutionalised public and political activities

Data from 2018 on similar indicators shows that wide age-based differences exist in Ireland in terms of engagement through non-institutionalised channels, particularly between those aged 15 to 29 and those aged 50 and above (European Social Survey, 2018[103]). For instance, young people were more likely than people aged 50 and above to post or share political content online (by 13 p.p.), wear or display political badges (8 p.p.), take part in public demonstrations (8. p.p.) and sign online petitions (8 p.p.). In contrast, differences across age groups were less pronounced on average across OECD countries in the EU (12 p.p. gap for posting online, 3 p.p. for wearing a badge, 4 p.p. for taking part in demonstrations, 6 p.p. for signing a petition).

Preferences for non-institutionalised over institutionalised channels for political engagement also differ between young women and men. The Growing Up in Ireland study shows that young women (aged 20) were more likely to take part in non-institutionalised forms of political engagement than young men of the same age (ESRI, 2021[105]; ESRI, 2018[101]). For instance, 66% of young women expressed they were politically active through non-institutionalised means, compared to 52% of young men.

Moreover, the level of political engagement, both through institutionalised and non-institutionalised means, differs across young people from different socioeconomic backgrounds. 64% of young people reporting 'living comfortably' on their current household income felt 'quite' to 'completely' able to take part in political activities compared to only 21% of young people that reported it was 'very difficult' to live on their current household income (European Social Survey, 2018[103]). Young people reporting it was “very difficult” to live on their current household income were also less likely to have signed a petition (by -13 p.p.), boycotted a product (-12 p.p.), posted about politics online (-7 p.p.), or taken part in public demonstrations (-2 p.p.) in the last 12 months compared to their better-off peers.

Representation of young people in the government workforce and state institutions

Share of central government employees aged 18-34 years old

In 2020, only 16% of employees in central government In Ireland were younger than 35 years, up from 13% in 2015, but below the OECD average of 19% in 2020. Across the OECD, large differences can be observed for this indicator, with the highest proportion of central government employees aged 18-34 in Israel (33%) and the lowest in Greece (2%) (OECD, 2021[109]).

While some of the observed differences across countries can be explained by their respective demographics, the age profile of central government employees can be an important indicator to determine if the civil service is considered an attractive employer. Governments where older age groups are over-represented, as is the case for Ireland, may have a wealth of experience, but could face challenges related to building the next generation of public servants. A multi-generational public service workforce enables better knowledge-sharing between long-serving staff and younger employees and ensures that a diversity of perspectives is considered when developing government programmes, plans and services (OECD, 2021[109]).

Representation of young people in parliament

As in many OECD countries, younger people in Ireland tend to be under-represented in parliament. In 2022, only 19% of Irish members of parliament (MPs) were aged 20-39, below the OECD average of 23% (see Figure 3.22). This points to a representation gap of roughly 16 p.p. when compared to the actual proportion of 18–39-year-olds in Ireland (35%). By comparison, the countries with the largest representation gaps across OECD include Israel (-29 p.p.) and Türkiye (-29 p.p.), and the narrowest include Germany, Latvia (by -1 p.p. each), and Denmark (-2 p.p.). It is worth noting that this gap in Ireland has become narrower since 2020 (by 3 p.p.) but this is attributed more importantly to ageing population trends, as the proportion of MPs aged 20-39 has remained relatively stable (18% in 2020) (OECD, 2023[110]).

Figure 3.22. Ireland ranks below the OECD average regarding the representation of people aged 20-39 in Parliament

Representation of young people in cabinet

Cabinet members in Ireland tend to be, on average, younger than in most OECD countries (OECD, 2023[110]). In 2022, the average age of cabinet members in Ireland was 49 compared to the OECD average of 53. Earlier data from 2018 shows similar trends, with Ireland cabinet members averaging 51 years compared to the OECD average of 53 (see Figure 3.23).

Figure 3.23. On average, cabinet members in Ireland are younger than in most other OECD countries

Conclusion

The educational attainment record of young people in Ireland is among the best in the OECD, with a high share of tertiary degrees and low rates of early school leaving. Ireland also scores above the OECD average in the International Student Assessment (PISA) for mathematics and science, and the reading skills of 15-year-olds in Ireland rank among the highest in the OECD. Young people in Ireland tend to have a relatively good exposure to the labour market during their education compared to their peers in other OECD countries, through a strong focus on combined school-and-work based programmes in vocational education and training and work experience opportunities during their studies, which can help to smoothen the school-to-work transition.

In terms of youth employment outcomes, both youth employment and unemployment rates are close to the OECD averages, while temporary employment is less frequent than in the OECD. Ireland also has a relatively low share of young people who are neither in employment, education or training compared with other OECD countries. Nevertheless, less than one out of three young jobseekers contact the public employment service when looking for work and those who do have to wait longer than their peers in other OECD countries to get support.

Social indicators illustrate that housing is a complex issue that disproportionally challenges young people in Ireland, where a high share of them continues living with their parents due to rapidly rising rent prices, difficult access to home ownership, and limited social housing. Youth poverty in Ireland is considerably below the OECD average, yet a relatively high share of young people receives income-replacement benefits. The COVID-19 pandemic had wide-reaching implications for the mental health of young people, both in Ireland and the OECD overall, and mental health care needs remain often unmet. Ireland scores better than many other OECD countries on a range of physical health indicators, like overweight and obesity rates or tobacco smoking and heavy drinking rates.

The government has put in place several provisions to enable children and young people in Ireland to engage with government. Yet, Ireland has the widest age-based differences in terms of trust in government across OECD countries, with young people trusting their government significantly less than other age groups and in comparison, with young people across OECD countries on average. When accounting for socioeconomic background, data shows that young people reporting to live comfortably tend to feel comparatively more satisfied with democracy, and more able to have a say in government processes, than those struggling to make ends meet. Such gaps point to the need for government bodies in Ireland to strengthen relationships with young people, in particular young people from socioeconomically disadvantaged groups.

Despite the government’s strong public consultation culture, young people in Ireland tend to prefer non-institutionalised forms of civic and political engagement (e.g., signing petitions, posting political opinions online, volunteering) to institutionalised forms (e.g., voting, taking part in public consultations). Further, for young people struggling to make ends meet, civic and political engagement rates were far lower than for better-off counterparts. Available data shows important accessibility barriers, including a lack of understanding of issues, lack of knowledge about opportunities to engage, and low perceptions of being able to impact policy.

While Ireland has well-developed mechanisms to inform decision-makers on the perspectives of young people, including though youth councils and a National Youth Assembly, younger people are under-represented in the government workforce and state institutions.

References

[32] Amárach Research (2022), Food poverty: The impact on vulnerable children and families, Barnardos, Aldi Ireland, https://www.barnardos.ie/media/14808/amarach-barnardos-aldi-food-poverty-research_embargoed-until-0001am-220222.pdf (accessed on 6 April 2023).

[16] Barnardos (2023), Food Insecurity in Ireland: Impact on children and their parents, Barnardos/ Aldi Ireland.

[44] Beasley, R., A. Semprini and E. Mitchell (2015), “Risk factors for asthma: Is prevention possible?”, The Lancet, Vol. 386/9998, pp. 1075-1085, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00156-7.

[1] Byrne, D. (2020), Income, Poverty and Deprivation among Children: A Statisical Baseline Analysis, Department of Children and Youth Affairs, Dublin.

[18] Byrne, D. and M. Treanor (2020), Income, Poverty and Deprivation among Children - A Statistical Baseline Analysis, https://researchportal.hw.ac.uk/en/publications/income-poverty-and-deprivation-among-children-a-statistical-basel (accessed on 11 April 2023).

[78] Cedefop (2021), Spotlight on VET: 2020 Compilation. Vocational education and training systems in Europe, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/files/4189_en.pdf.

[91] Central Bank of Ireland (2022), Quarterly Bulletin QB4 - October 2022, Central Bank of Ireland, https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/publications/quarterly-bulletins/qb-archive/2022/quarterly-bulletin-q4-2022.pdf?sfvrsn=1666951d_5 (accessed on 2 May 2023).

[93] Central Statistics Office Ireland (2023), Income and Poverty Rates 2020-2022, Central Statistics Office Ireland, https://data.cso.ie/table/SIA101.

[89] Central Statistics Office Ireland (2022), Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) Properties by Local Electoral Area 2021, Central Statistics Office Ireland, https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-hhwl/housingassistancepaymenthappropertiesbylocalelectoralarea2021/ (accessed on 2 May 2023).

[88] Central Statistics Office Ireland (2020), Social Housing in Ireland 2019 - Analysis of Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) Scheme, Central Statistics Office Ireland, https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-hhwl/socialhousinginireland2019-analysisofhousingassistancepaymenthapscheme/ (accessed on 2 May 2023).

[41] Children’s Right Alliance (2022), Child Poverty Monitor 2022, https://www.childrensrights.ie/resources/child-poverty-monitor (accessed on 19 January 2023).

[61] Children’s Right Alliance (2022), Report Card 2022 - Is Government keeping its promises to Children?.

[43] Clair, A. (2019), “Housing: an Under-Explored Influence on Children’s Well-Being and Becoming”, Child Indicators Research, Vol. 12/2, pp. 609-626, https://doi.org/10.1007/S12187-018-9550-7/METRICS.

[47] Clarke, C. et al. (2022), The economic costs of childhood socio-economic disadvantage in European OECD countries, OECD Papers on Well-being & Inequalities, no. 9 OECD iLibrary, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/the-economic-costs-of-childhood-socio-economic-disadvantage-in-european-oecd-countries_8c0c66b9-en (accessed on 16 January 2023).

[8] Clarke, L. and D. Mahon (2020), Spending Review 2020, Tusla: Staffing and Workforce Planning, IGEES Unit, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, Government of Ireland, https://igees.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Tusla-Staffing-and-Workforce-Planning.pdf (accessed on 7 April 2023).

[40] Clark, H. et al. (2020), “The Lancet Commissions A future for the world’s children? A WHO-UNICEF-Lancet Commission Executive summary”, The Lancet, Vol. 395, pp. 605-658, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32540-1.

[57] Collishaw, S. et al. (2019), “Brief report: a comparison of child mental health inequalities in three UK population cohorts”, European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 28/11, pp. 1547-1549, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-019-01305-9.

[13] CSO (2023), Poverty - Central Statistics Office - Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) 2022, https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-silc/surveyonincomeandlivingconditionssilc2022/poverty/ (accessed on 11 April 2023).

[15] CSO (2022), Ability To Make Ends Meet, Central Statistics Office, Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC): Enforced Deprivation, https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-silced/surveyonincomeandlivingconditionssilcenforceddeprivation2022/abilitytomakeendsmeet/ (accessed on 14 April 2023).

[48] Curristan, S., B. Maître and H. Russell (2022), Intergenerational poverty in Ireland, Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, Ireland, https://doi.org/10.26504/RS150.

[26] Dalton, C. (2022), Double Disadvantage Reduced Access to Early Childhood Care and Education for Children at Risk of Poverty in Fingal, Fingal CYPSC.

[11] Daly, M. (2022), “Ireland is developing a national model of parenting support services”, No. ESPN Flash Report 2022/63, European Commission/ European Social Policy Network.

[55] DCECIY (2022), Better Outcomes Brighter Future Indicator Set Report 2022, Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Government of Ireland, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/c9ad0-better-outcomes-brighter-future-indicator-set-report-2022/ (accessed on 6 April 2023).

[7] DCECIY (2022), Tusla Funded Community And Voluntary Sector Family Support Services: Spending Review 2022, IGEES, Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/242773/a5b5ab06-dea9-4572-912f-74afebe2988c.pdf#page=null (accessed on 7 April 2023).

[63] DCEDIY (2023), Children and Young People’s Indicator Set, https://www.gov.ie/ga/foilsiuchan/03f4b-children-and-young-peoples-indicator-set/.

[107] DCEDIY (2023), Spotlight report on Young People’s Participation in Youth Organisations, https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/a9376-minister-ogorman-publishes-spotlight-report-on-young-peoples-participation-in-youth-organisations/.

[98] DCEDIY (2023), Young Ireland: the National Policy Framework for Children and Young People (0-24) 2023-2028, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/80ac4-young-ireland-the-national-policy-framework-for-children-and-young-people-0-24-2023-2028/?referrer=http://www.gov.ie/youngireland/.

[62] DCEDIY (2022), An Indicator Set for Better Outcomes Brighter Futures, The national policy framework for children and young people 2014-2020, Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, https://assets.gov.ie/213523/1ce0be37-11c1-4aac-9e3a-9f9c49368cf0.pdf.

[102] DCEDIY (2022), Experiences and Perceptions of Discrimination in Ireland, Government of Ireland, https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/219979/ff3348bc-ff10-4970-880f-ccd5294e43c6.pdf#page=null.

[74] Department of Education (2022), Senior Cycle Redevelopment, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/f53c6-senior-cycle-redevelopment/.

[71] Department of Education (2017), DEIS Plan 2017: Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools, https://www.gov.ie/en/policy-information/4018ea-deis-delivering-equality-of-opportunity-in-schools/#deis-plan-2017.

[69] Department of Education Ireland (2021), “Statement of Strategy 2021-2023”.

[96] Department of Health (2021), Healthy Ireland Survey 2021 Summary Report, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/9ef45-the-healthy-ireland-survey-2021/.

[3] Department of the Taoiseach (2023), Taoiseach publishes plan for ending child poverty, https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/2d20c-taoiseach-publishes-plan-for-ending-child-poverty/#:~:text=From%20Poverty%20to%20Potential%3A%20A,poverty%2C%20starting%20with%20Budget%202024. (accessed on September 2023).

[46] DHLGH (2023), Monthly Homeless Report September 2023, Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Government of Ireland, https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/274917/493dcfde-4c78-4c37-8314-e40f8814c57b.pdf#page=null (accessed on 6 April 2023).

[4] DHLGH (2021), Housing for All - a New Housing Plan for Ireland, Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Government of Ireland, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/ef5ec-housing-for-all-a-new-housing-plan-for-ireland/ (accessed on 24 January 2023).

[23] EC (2021), Education and Training Monitor 2021: Ireland, European Commission, https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2021.1916556.

[56] Elgar, F. et al. (2015), “Socioeconomic inequalities in adolescent health 2002–2010: a time-series analysis of 34 countries participating in the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children study”, The Lancet, Vol. 385/9982, pp. 2088-2095, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61460-4.

[105] ESRI (2021), Growing up In Ireland Cohort ’98 (Child Cohort) Wave 4 - 20 years, 2019., Irish Social Science Data Archive. SN: 0020-04, http://www.ucd.ie/issda/data/GUIChild/GUIChildWave4.

[101] ESRI (2018), Growing up In Ireland Cohort ’98 (Child Cohort) Wave 3 - 17/18 years, 2016., Irish Social Science Data Archive. SN: 0020-03., http://www.ucd.ie/issda/data/GUIChild/GUIChildWave3.

[33] ESRI (2018), Growing Up in Ireland Key Findings: Cohort ’08 at 9 years old, ESRI, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Children and Youth Affairs, https://www.growingup.gov.ie/pubs/Growing-Up-in-Ireland-Health-and-Physical-Development.pdf (accessed on 6 April 2023).

[104] Eurobarometer (2021), Youth Survey 2021, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/fr/be-heard/eurobarometer/youth-survey-2021.

[83] European Commission (2020), Country fiche: The Youth Guarantee in Ireland, https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?advSearchKey=YGcountryfiches&mode=advancedSubmit&catId=22&policyArea=0&policyAreaSub=0&country=0&year=0.

[67] European Commission (2019), Skills Mismatch & Productivity in the EU, https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/economic-and-financial-affairs-publications_en http://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2801/009.

[20] European Council (2021), “Council Recommendation (EU) 2021/1004 of 14 June 2021 establishing a European Child Guarantee”, Official Journal of the European Union, Vol. L 223, pp. 14-23, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2021.223.01.0014.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AL%3A2021%3A223%3ATOC (accessed on 5 January 2023).

[103] European Social Survey (2018), ESS round 9 - 2018. Timing of life, Justice and fairness, https://ess-search.nsd.no/CDW/RoundCountry.

[108] Gallup World Poll (2022), Gallup World Poll, https://www.gallup.com/analytics/318923/world-poll-public-datasets.aspx.

[58] Gibbons, R., S. Sprong and Y. Chzhen (2023), “Growing Up in the Great Recession: The Effects of Three Dimensions of Economic Well-being on Child Behavioral Difficulties from Ages 3 to 17”, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-022-01721-2.

[2] GoI (2020), Roadmap for Social Inclusion 2020-2025: Ambitions, Goals, Commitments, Government of Ireland, Government Buildings, Dublin.

[90] Government of Ireland (2023), Housing for All Youth Homelessness Strategy 2023-2025, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/69597-youth-homelessness-strategy/#:~:text=The%20Youth%20Homelessness%20Strategy%20is,prevention%20and%20exits (accessed on 2 May 2023).

[84] Government of Ireland (2021), Pathways to Work: 2021-2025, https://assets.gov.ie/152608/090ec83f-7e86-4419-a63c-d3ee92bbce4a.pdf.

[53] Griffin, E. et al. (2018), “Increasing rates of self-harm among children, adolescents and young adults: a 10-year national registry study 2007–2016”, Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, Vol. 53/7, pp. 663-671, https://doi.org/10.1007/S00127-018-1522-1/TABLES/3.

[30] Guio, A., E. Marlier and H. Frazer (2020), Feasibility study for a child guarantee : final report, European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion.

[70] Higher Education Authority and Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science (2022), National Access Plan: A Strategic Action Plan for Equity of Access, Participation and Success in Higher Education 2022–2028, Government of Ireland, https://hea.ie/assets/uploads/2022/09/National-Access-Plan-2022-2028-FINAL.pdf.

[37] Houses of the Oireachtais (2023), School Meals Programme – Thursday, 9 Feb 2023 – Parliamentary Questions (33rd Dáil) – Houses of the Oireachtas, https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2023-02-09/53/ (accessed on 6 April 2023).

[27] HSE (2021), How much you can earn and still qualify?.

[99] HSE (2020), Sharing the Vision - A Mental Health Policy for Everyone, https://www.hse.ie/eng/about/who/mentalhealth/sharing-the-vision/.

[12] Kennedy, A. (2022), Child Guarantee National Action Plans: Targets, EU funding and governance, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, European Parliament.

[5] Kennedy, F. (2019), “Family Services Supporting Children and their Families”, Prevention & Early Intervention Series Focussed Policy Assessment, No. 6, Prevention Early Intervention Unit, Department of Public Expenditure and Refrom.

[85] Labour Market Advisory Council (2023), Pathways to Work Progress Report (July 2021 – June 2022), https://assets.gov.ie/242268/94141b17-fba6-4777-aad3-896190d83fc4.pdf.

[52] Lynch, S. et al. (2022), “Prevalence of mental health disorders in children and adolescents in the Republic of Ireland: a systematic review”, Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine, pp. 1-12, https://doi.org/10.1017/ipm.2022.46.

[31] Madden, D. (2015), “The poverty effects of a ’fat-tax’ in Ireland”, Health Economics (United Kingdom), Vol. 24/1, pp. 104-121, https://doi.org/10.1002/HEC.3006.

[49] Maître, B., H. Russell and E. Smyth (2021), The dynamics of child poverty in Ireland: Evidence from the Growing Up in Ireland survey, Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, Ireland, https://doi.org/10.26504/RS121.

[81] McGinnity, F. et al. (2021), Monitoring decent work in Ireland, Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, Ireland, https://doi.org/10.26504/bkmnext414.

[54] McLoughlin, A. et al. (2022), “Locked in and locked out: sequelae of a pandemic for distressed and vulnerable teenagers in Ireland: Post-COVID rise in psychiatry assessments of teenagers presenting to the emergency department out-of-hours at an adult Irish tertiary hospital”, Irish Journal of Medical Science, pp. 1-8, https://doi.org/10.1007/S11845-022-03080-0/FIGURES/3.

[92] McQuinn, K. et al. (2022), “Quarterly Economic Commentary”, Macro Economic Forecasting, Vol. Autumn 2022, https://www.esri.ie/pubs/QEC2022AUT.pdf.

[60] Mental Health Commission (2022), Mental Health Commission Annual Report 2021 Including the report of the Inspector of Mental Health Services, https://www.mhcirl.ie/sites/default/files/2022-07/MHC%202021%20Annual%20Report%20last.pdf (accessed on 19 January 2023).

[51] Mitchell, L. et al. (2020), The Childhood Obesity Surveillance Initiative (COSI) in the Republic of Ireland, Health Service Executive, NNSC & University College Dublin.

[79] Musset, P. (2019), “Improving work-based learning in schools”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 233, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/918caba5-en.

[19] NESC (2020), The Future of the Irish Social Welfare System: Participation and Protection, National Economic and Social Development Office, Dublin.

[28] Nolan, A. (2017), Growing Up in Ireland: Understanding use of general practitioner services among children in Ireland, ESRI, Dublin.

[14] OECD (2024), OECD Child Well-being Data Portal, https://www.oecd.org/els/family/child-well-being/data/.

[68] OECD (2023), Education at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en.

[110] OECD (2023), Government at a Glance 2023, https://www.oecd.org/publication/government-at-a-glance/2023/.

[25] OECD (2023), OECD Income Distribution Database.

[75] OECD (2023), OECD Skills Strategy Ireland: Assessment and Recommendations, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d7b8b40b-en.

[76] OECD (2022), Are Students Ready to Take on Environmental Challenges?, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8abe655c-en.

[100] OECD (2022), Building Trust to Reinforce Democracy: Main Findings from the 2021 OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions, Building Trust in Public Institutions, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/b407f99c-en.

[22] OECD (2022), Enrolment rates in early childhood education and care services and primary education, 3- to 5-year-olds, OECD.

[34] OECD (2022), OECD Child Well-being Data Portal.

[82] OECD (2022), OECD Economic Surveys: Ireland 2022, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/46a6ea85-en.

[64] OECD (2022), Recommendation of the Council on Creating Better Opportunities for Young People, OECD/LEGAL/0474, http://oe.cd/youth-recommendation.

[59] OECD (2022), Starting Unequal: How’s Life for Disadvantaged Children?, OECD Publishing, OECD Papers on Well-being and Inequalities, http://www.oecd.org/wise/papersandbriefs (accessed on 9 December 2022).

[94] OECD (2021), Disability, Work and Inclusion in Ireland: Engaging and Supporting Employers, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/74b45baa-en.

[109] OECD (2021), Government at a Glance 2021, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/1c258f55-en.

[42] OECD (2021), Measuring What Matters for Child Well-being and Policies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e82fded1-en.

[29] OECD (2021), Measuring What Matters to Child Well-Being and Policies, OECD, Paris.

[86] OECD (2021), No Home for The Young? Stylised Facts and Policy Challenges, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/housing/no-home-for-the-young.pdf.

[66] OECD (2021), Summary of the Youth Consultation on the building blocks of the proposed OECD Youth Recommendation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/social/Youth-Consultation-OECD-Youth-Week-2021.pdf.

[65] OECD (2021), The Updated OECD Youth Action Plan: Building Blocks for Future Action, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/employment/youth/The-Updated-OECD-Youth-Action-Plan.pdf (accessed on 24 September 2021).

[87] OECD (2021), Young people’s concerns during COVID-19: Results from Risks That Matter 2020, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/64b51763-en.

[77] OECD (2020), Education at a Glance 2020: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/69096873-en.

[106] OECD (2020), Governance for Youth, Trust and Intergenerational Justice: Fit for All Generations?, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/c3e5cb8a-en.

[21] OECD (2020), “Is Childcare Affordable?”, Policy Brief on Employment, Labour and Social Affairs, OECD, Paris, http://oe.cd/TaxBEN. (accessed on 31 July 2020).

[45] OECD (2019), Changing the Odds for Vulnerable Children: Building Opportunities and Resilience, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a2e8796c-en.

[72] OECD (2019), Investing in Youth: Finland, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/1251a123-en.

[73] OECD (2019), Ireland - Country Note - PISA 2018 Results, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA2018_CN_IRL.pdf.

[50] OECD (2019), The Heavy Burden of Obesity: The Economics of Prevention, OECD Health Policy Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/67450d67-en.

[95] OECD/European Union (2022), Health at a Glance: Europe 2022: State of Health in the EU Cycle, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/507433b0-en.

[97] OECD/European Union (2020), Health at a Glance: Europe 2020: State of Health in the EU Cycle, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/82129230-en.

[35] Oostindjer, M. et al. (2017), “Are school meals a viable and sustainable tool to improve the healthiness and sustainability of children´s diet and food consumption? A cross-national comparative perspective”, https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2016.1197180, Vol. 57/18, pp. 3942-3958, https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2016.1197180.

[24] Paull, G. (2021), 12-Month Review of the National Childcare Scheme: A report prepared for the Department of Children, Equality, Disability and Youth (Ireland), Frontier Economics.

[39] Queally, M. et al. (2018), “Do mothers accurately identify their child’s overweight/obesity status during early childhood? Evidence from a nationally representative cohort study”, The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, Vol. 15/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/S12966-018-0688-Y.

[80] Quintini, G. (2015), “Working and learning: A diversity of patterns”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 169, OECD Publishing, Paris.

[17] Regan, M. and B. Maître (2020), “Child poverty in Ireland and the pandemic recession”, https://doi.org/10.26504/BP202104.

[36] Reilly, L. (2023), Access for children in need to the key services covered by the European Child Guarantee: Ireland, European Social Policy Analysis; European Commission.

[6] Riding, S. et al. (2021), “Looking beyond COVID-19: Strengthening family support services across the OECD”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 260, OECD Publishing, Paris.

[38] RSM Ireland (2022), Evaluation of the Schools Meals Programme, RSM Ireland/ Department of Social Protection , Dublin, https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/251427/6b3e8499-4cca-4f32-aa7d-cbcad0b660e2.pdf#page=null (accessed on 6 April 2023).

[9] Smith, K. (2022), Childhood Inequality and Child Policy in Covid Times, Geary Institute of Public Policy, University College Dublin, https://publicpolicy.ie/covid/childhood-inequality-and-child-policy-in-covid-times/ (accessed on 22 December 2022).

[10] Tusla (2017), Child Protection and Welfare Strategy 2017-2022, https://www.tusla.ie/uploads/content/Tusla_Child_Protection_and_Welfare_Strategy.pdf.

Notes

← 1. The consistent poverty measure in Ireland is based on the number of households both at risk of poverty (as measured as living on less than 60% of the median income) and experiencing enforced deprivation (as defined as lacking two or more items from an 11 item deprivation index).

← 2. "Severe housing deprivation" is defined and measured in line with the Eurostat definition. Under the Eurostat definition, a household experiencing "severe housing deprivation" is one that is both overcrowded and experiencing one or more of the following: The dwelling has a leaking roof, damp walls, floors or foundation, or rot in window frames or floor; The dwelling has neither a bath nor a shower; The dwelling has no flushing toilet for exclusive use of the household; The dwelling is considered too dark.

← 3. Growing Up in Ireland is the national longitudinal study of children and young people, a joint project of the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth (DCEDIY) and the Central Statistics Office (CSO). The study started in 2006 and follows the progress of two groups of children: 8,000 9-year-olds (Cohort ’98) and 10,000 9-month-olds (Cohort ’08). The members of Cohort ’98 are now aged about 24 years and those of Cohort ’08 are around 14 years old.

← 4. The 2021 Flash Eurobarometer Youth Survey asked young people between the ages 18 to 30 to identify the most important barrier to participating in elections among a set of 11 options, these being: ‘I don’t have time’, ‘I'm just not interested’, ‘I don't think decision-makers listen to people like me’, ‘I don’t understand the issues enough’, ‘I don’t feel confident expressing my opinions’, ‘I think it would be too difficult to understand the jargon/'political speak'’, ‘Nobody has ever asked me to or invited me’. ‘I was not old enough to vote’, ‘Something else’. ‘Nothing, you are already an active citizen’, ‘Don't know’.

← 5. Ireland only ranks behind the United States (43%), Australia (32%), Norway (32%), Slovenia (31%), and Canada (30%), according to responses submitted by 15- to 29-year-old respondents to the 2021 Gallup World Poll survey question “Have you done any of the following in the past month? How about volunteered your time to an organization?”.

← 6. Institutionalised forms of political participation refer to activities led, funded and/or designed by public institutions with the specific purpose of enabling the political participation of constituents (e.g., voting at a national and local level, public consultations and referendums, town hall meetings organised by local councils). In comparison, non-institutionalised forms of political participation refers to political engagement that is led by constituents outside of the framework of public institutions (e.g., organising a protest, posting political content online, signing a petition).

╳

Legal and rights

This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Extracts from publications may be subject to additional disclaimers, which are set out in the complete version of the publication, available at the link provided.

https://doi.org/10.1787/12f4dfb2-en

The use of this work, whether digital or print, is governed by the Terms and Conditions to be found at https://www.oecd.org/termsandconditions.